Applying large language models (LLMs) to assist in psycho-counseling is an emerging and meaningful approach, driven by the significant gap between patient needs and the availability of mental health support. However, current LLMs struggle to consistently provide effective responses to client speeches, largely due to the lack of supervision from high-quality real psycho-counseling data, whose content is typically inaccessible due to client privacy concerns. Furthermore, the quality of therapists’ responses in available sessions can vary significantly based on their professional training and experience. Assessing the quality of therapists’ responses remains an open challenge. We address these challenges by first proposing a set of professional and comprehensive principles to evaluate therapists’ responses to client speeches. Using these principles, we create a **Psy**cho-**Co**unseling **Pref**erence dataset, **PsyCoPref**, which contains 36k high-quality preference comparison pairs. This dataset aligns with the preferences of professional psychotherapists, providing a robust foundation for evaluating and improving LLMs in psycho-counseling. Experiments on reward modeling and preference learning demonstrate that PsyCoPref is an excellent resource for LLMs to acquire essential skills for responding to clients in a counseling session. Our best-aligned model achieves an impressive win rate of 87% against GPT-4o.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at factual retrieval, they often struggle with the "curse of two-hop reasoning" in compositional tasks. Recent research suggests that parameter-sharing transformers can bridge this gap by forming a "Generalization Circuit" during a prolonged "grokking" phase. A fundamental question arises: Is a grokked model truly superior to its non-grokked counterparts? Furthermore, is the extensive computational cost of waiting for the grokking phase worthwhile? In this work, we conduct a mechanistic study to evaluate the Generalization Circuit’s role in knowledge assimilation and transfer. We demonstrate that: (i) The inference paths established by non-grokked and grokked models for in-distribution compositional queries are identical. This suggests that the "Generalization Circuit" does not represent the sudden acquisition of a new reasoning paradigm. Instead, we argue that grokking is the process of integrating memorized atomic facts into an easy-acquire, naturally established reasoning path. (ii) Achieving high accuracy on unseen cases after prolonged training and the formation of a certain reasoning path are not bound; they can occur independently under specific data regimes. (iii) Even a mature circuit exhibits limited transferability when integrating new knowledge, suggesting that "grokked" Transformers do not achieve a full mastery of compositional logic.

There is a significant gap between patient needs and available mental health support today. In this paper, we aim to thoroughly examine the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist professional psychotherapy. To this end, we propose a new benchmark, CBT-Bench, for the systematic evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) assistance. We include three levels of tasks in CBT-Bench: **I: Basic CBT knowledge acquisition**, with the task of multiple-choice questions; **II: Cognitive model understanding**, with the tasks of cognitive distortion classification, primary core belief classification, and fine-grained core belief classification; **III: Therapeutic response generation**, with the task of generating responses to patient speech in CBT therapy sessions.These tasks encompass key aspects of CBT that could potentially be enhanced through AI assistance, while also outlining a hierarchy of capability requirements, ranging from basic knowledge recitation to engaging in real therapeutic conversations. We evaluated representative LLMs on our benchmark. Experimental results indicate that while LLMs perform well in reciting CBT knowledge, they fall short in complex real-world scenarios requiring deep analysis of patients’ cognitive structures and generating effective responses, suggesting potential future work.

While large language models (LLMs) have been thoroughly evaluated for deductive and inductive reasoning, their proficiency in holistic rule learning in interactive environments remains less explored. We introduce RULEARN, a novel benchmark to assess the rule-learning abilities of LLM agents in interactive settings. In RULEARN, agents strategically interact with simulated environments to gather observations, discern patterns, and solve complex problems. To enhance the rule-learning capabilities for LLM agents, we propose IDEA, a novel reasoning framework that integrates the process of Induction, Deduction, and Abduction. The IDEA agent generates initial hypotheses from limited observations through abduction, devises plans to validate these hypotheses or leverages them to solve problems via deduction, and refines previous hypotheses through induction, dynamically establishing and applying rules that mimic human rule-learning behaviors. Our evaluation of the IDEA framework, which involves five representative LLMs, demonstrates significant improvements over the baseline. Furthermore, our study with human participants reveals notable discrepancies in rule-learning behaviors between humans and LLMs. We believe our benchmark will serve as a valuable and challenging resource, and IDEA will provide crucial insights for the development of LLM agents capable of human-like rule learning in real-world scenarios. Our code and data have been released on GitHub: https://github.com/KaiyuHe998/RULEARN_IDEA.

Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) by enabling dynamic, multi-step reasoning and information retrieval. However, these systems often exhibit sub-optimal search behaviors like over-search (retrieving redundant information) and under-search (failing to retrieve necessary information), which hinder efficiency and reliability. This work formally defines and quantifies these behaviors, revealing their prevalence across multiple QA datasets and agentic RAG systems (e.g., one model could have avoided searching in 27.7% of its search steps). Furthermore, we demonstrate a crucial link between these inefficiencies and the models’ uncertainty regarding their own knowledge boundaries, where response accuracy correlates with model’s uncertainty in its search decisions. To address this, we propose β-GRPO, a reinforcement learning-based training method that incorporates confidence threshold to reward high-certainty search decisions. Experiments on seven QA benchmarks show that β-GRPO enable a 3B model with better agentic RAG ability, outperforming other strong baselines with a 4% higher average exact match score.

Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable potential in advancing scientific discovery. However, their capability in the fundamental yet crucial task of reproducing code from research papers, especially in the NLP domain, remains underexplored. This task includes unique complex reasoning challenges in the intellectual synthesis of abstract concepts and the comprehension of code repositories with interdependent files. Motivated by this gap, we present LMR-BENCH, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the capability of LLM agents on code reproduction from Language Modeling Research. It consists of 28 code reproduction tasks derived from 23 research papers published in top-tier NLP venues over the past five years, spanning nine fundamental categories. Models are provided with a research paper, a code repository containing one or more masked functions, and instructions for implementing these functions. We conduct extensive experiments in standard prompting and LLM agent settings with state-of-the-art LLMs, evaluating the accuracy of unit tests and performing LLM-based evaluation of code correctness. Experimental results reveal that even the most advanced models still exhibit persistent limitations in scientific reasoning and code synthesis, highlighting critical gaps in LLM agents’ ability to autonomously reproduce scientific research.

One critical issue for chat systems is to stay consistent about preferences, opinions, beliefs and facts of itself, which has been shown a difficult problem. In this work, we study methods to assess and bolster utterance consistency of chat systems. A dataset is first developed for studying the inconsistencies, where inconsistent dialogue responses, explanations of the inconsistencies, and recovery utterances are authored by annotators. This covers the life span of inconsistencies, namely introduction, understanding, and resolution. Building on this, we introduce a set of tasks centered on dialogue consistency, specifically focused on its detection and resolution. Our experimental findings indicate that our dataset significantly helps the progress in identifying and resolving conversational inconsistencies, and current popular large language models like ChatGPT which are good at resolving inconsistencies however still struggle with detection.

Current self-training methods such as standard self-training, co-training, tri-training, and others often focus on improving model performance on a single task, utilizing differences in input features, model architectures, and training processes. However, many tasks in natural language processing are about different but related aspects of language, and models trained for one task can be great teachers for other related tasks. In this work, we propose friend-training, a cross-task self-training framework, where models trained to do different tasks are used in an iterative training, pseudo-labeling, and retraining process to help each other for better selection of pseudo-labels. With two dialogue understanding tasks, conversational semantic role labeling and dialogue rewriting, chosen for a case study, we show that the models trained with the friend-training framework achieve the best performance compared to strong baselines.

One of the main challenges open-domain end-to-end dialogue systems, or chatbots, face is the prevalence of unsafe behavior, such as toxic languages and harmful suggestions. However, existing dialogue datasets do not provide enough annotation to explain and correct such unsafe behavior. In this work, we construct a new dataset called SafeConv for the research of conversational safety: (1) Besides the utterance-level safety labels, SafeConv also provides unsafe spans in an utterance, information able to indicate which words contribute to the detected unsafe behavior; (2) SafeConv provides safe alternative responses to continue the conversation when unsafe behavior detected, guiding the conversation to a gentle trajectory. By virtue of the comprehensive annotation of SafeConv, we benchmark three powerful models for the mitigation of conversational unsafe behavior, including a checker to detect unsafe utterances, a tagger to extract unsafe spans, and a rewriter to convert an unsafe response to a safe version. Moreover, we explore the huge benefits brought by combining the models for explaining the emergence of unsafe behavior and detoxifying chatbots. Experiments show that the detected unsafe behavior could be well explained with unsafe spans and popular chatbots could be detoxified by a huge extent. The dataset is available at https://github.com/mianzhang/SafeConv.